4.7 Article

Optimizing Pediatric Patient Safety in the Emergency Care Setting

期刊

PEDIATRICS
卷 150, 期 5, 页码 -

出版社

AMER ACAD PEDIATRICS
DOI: 10.1542/peds.2022-059673

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article is a revised policy statement on patient safety in the emergency care setting, jointly issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Emergency Physicians, and the Emergency Nurses Association. It highlights the unique safety issues in caring for pediatric patients in the emergency department and provides recommendations and best practices to ensure safe care for children.
This is a revision of the previous American Academy of Pediatrics policy statement titled Patient Safety in the Emergency Care Setting, and is the first joint policy statement by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American College of Emergency Physicians, and the Emergency Nurses Association to address pediatric patient safety in the emergency care setting. Caring for children in the emergency setting can be prone to medical errors because of a number of environmental and human factors. The emergency department (ED) has frequent workflow interruptions, multiple care transitions, and barriers to effective communication. In addition, the high volume of patients, high-decision density under time pressure, diagnostic uncertainty, and limited knowledge of patients' history and preexisting conditions make the safe care of critically ill and injured patients even more challenging. It is critical that all EDs, including general EDs who care for the majority of ill and injured children, understand the unique safety issues related to children. Furthermore, it is imperative that all EDs practice patient safety principles, support a culture of safety, and adopt best practices to improve safety for all children seeking emergency care. This policy statement outlines the recommendations necessary for EDs to minimize pediatric medical errors and to provide safe care for children of all ages.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据